Jump to content

Archie Battersbee life support to be switched off


JudyJudyJudy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Shooter McGavin
2 minutes ago, Dazo said:


Like all professions there will be good, bad, lazy and negligent which result in mistakes sometimes catastrophic. Blindly accepting probably isn’t the way to go. I’d suggest you just made up that response. 


I didn’t, why would I, with absolutely no medical training or law education behind me, think I know better than someone with 10+ years education and training behind them?

 

I’m not going to be one of these people who googles things for 5 minutes and starts thinking I know better than people who have about 10+ years education and experience.
 

Now, if it’s a sales person, or a mate down the pub telling me we’ll sign Ronaldo or a plumber telling me that new tap will cost £25,000, then of-course you would take all of that with a pinch of salt.

 

But lawyers, doctors & surgeons? I’d like to think that they’d know best, and a quick google doesn’t stand up to their education, qualifications and experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Francis Albert

    11

  • MoncurMacdonaldMercer

    14

  • Jambo-Jimbo

    32

  • JudyJudyJudy

    20

Shooter McGavin

With this specific case, the doctors have clearly assessed everything, and have came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no quality of life to be had for this young laddie, so it’s for the best.
 

People get things wrong, of-course they do, but hasn’t this kid been observed by doctors for about 4/5 months now?

 

I think they’ve seen enough to reach their conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

With this specific case, the doctors have clearly assessed everything, and have came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no quality of life to be had for this young laddie, so it’s for the best.
 

People get things wrong, of-course they do, but hasn’t this kid been observed by doctors for about 4/5 months now?

 

I think they’ve seen enough to reach their conclusion.

 

That's the thing here, this isn't just one doctors opinion, Archie will have been examined by numerous doctors & consultants, others will have been given his test results for an opinion, even all the court cases, which there has been 9 it said on the news, will have passed the medical evidence over to court oppointed medical experts, the judge won't have a clue what this test result means or that test result means, so the courts will pass that over to medical experts who know what the test results mean, for their opinion.

So Archie has quite probably been directly and indirectly examined by a dozen or more doctors, and all seem to agree, that in this case there is no hope whatsoever of recovery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shooter McGavin
21 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

That's the thing here, this isn't just one doctors opinion, Archie will have been examined by numerous doctors & consultants, others will have been given his test results for an opinion, even all the court cases, which there has been 9 it said on the news, will have passed the medical evidence over to court oppointed medical experts, the judge won't have a clue what this test result means or that test result means, so the courts will pass that over to medical experts who know what the test results mean, for their opinion.

So Archie has quite probably been directly and indirectly examined by a dozen or more doctors, and all seem to agree, that in this case there is no hope whatsoever of recovery.


Exactly.

 

This isn’t some snap decision on a whim, it’s been months of observation and looking ahead to the laddies quality of life in the future.

 

A horrendous situation for the family nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shooter McGavin said:

With this specific case, the doctors have clearly assessed everything, and have came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no quality of life to be had for this young laddie, so it’s for the best.
 

People get things wrong, of-course they do, but hasn’t this kid been observed by doctors for about 4/5 months now?

 

I think they’ve seen enough to reach their conclusion.

 

Correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shooter McGavin said:


I’m sure it takes around 10 years to become a fully qualified GP, about 15 years to become a fully qualified surgeon and about 6-7 years to become a fully qualified lawyer.

 

So yes.

Having went through serious health issues a couple years back I fully respect the judgement and assessments of trained medical people such as consultants . They really know their stuff.  I’d listen to them any day over Joe Bloggs . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:


yup in a recent case they were about to do that and the ‘dead’ patient woke up just in time :)

 

 

hoping to start running and playing football again :lol:

 

 

Someone’s playing football after their brain started necrotising? Aye, OK. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Yes, there is no more courts that the family can go to.

News on Forth 1 at 8 was saying they had logged another appeal to get him moved to a hospice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
3 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

News on Forth 1 at 8 was saying they had logged another appeal to get him moved to a hospice.

It’s become ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

It’s become ridiculous.

I think the Hospoce move is for him to pass away in a kinder environment that a hospital ward. They'd mentioned taking him out to a garden or something before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
11 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

I think the Hospoce move is for him to pass away in a kinder environment that a hospital ward. They'd mentioned taking him out to a garden or something before. 

Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

I think the Hospoce move is for him to pass away in a kinder environment that a hospital ward. They'd mentioned taking him out to a garden or something before. 

Certainly kinder for the parents and family. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:


yup in a recent case they were about to do that and the ‘dead’ patient woke up just in time :)

 

 

hoping to start running and playing football again :lol:

 

 

Do you have a link to this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

I think the Hospoce move is for him to pass away in a kinder environment that a hospital ward. They'd mentioned taking him out to a garden or something before. 

 

Yeh I heard his mother say that this morning, which means she knows that there is no hope for the laddie if she now wants him taken to a hospice so that he can pass away.  Makes me wonder why go through all these court cases to stop the hospital from removing life support, when that's exactly what the family want to do by moving him to a hospice.  Plus I'd imagine it will be a logistical nightmare trying to transport the lad whilst still wired up to all the machines, if indeed it is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Certainly kinder for the parents and family. 

Agreed. Like I said yesterday, Jake is gone. He can't be harmed physically or ethically anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Yeh I heard his mother say that this morning, which means she knows that there is no hope for the laddie if she now wants him taken to a hospice so that he can pass away.  Makes me wonder why go through all these court cases to stop the hospital from removing life support, when that's exactly what the family want to do by moving him to a hospice.  Plus I'd imagine it will be a logistical nightmare trying to transport the lad whilst still wired up to all the machines, if indeed it is possible.

Because this is their last dice. They wanted to keep him alive to get him treatment that was offered in other nations before. Now that's all been taken away they can at least let him go in the best way possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MoncurMacdonaldMercer
3 hours ago, Shooter McGavin said:


I’m sure it takes around 10 years to become a fully qualified GP, about 15 years to become a fully qualified surgeon and about 6-7 years to become a fully qualified lawyer.

 

So yes.


👍

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MoncurMacdonaldMercer
58 minutes ago, Zico said:

Someone’s playing football after their brain started necrotising? Aye, OK. 


they were about to remove his organs when he woke up from being deemed ‘brain dead’ so no his brain wasn’t dead it was a mistake or a miracle

 

a very low probability occurrence I’m sure but one which appears (understandably) to be driving this family

 

if I’m understanding correctly they just want more time - not sure how long but appears they want more time to exhaust the albeit very low probability of recovery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MoncurMacdonaldMercer
33 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Do you have a link to this?


nope - but if you google something along the lines of ‘boy deemed brain dead wakes up just before his organs were about to be removed’ you’ll see him actually playing football in one of the links 😃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:


they were about to remove his organs when he woke up from being deemed ‘brain dead’ so no his brain wasn’t dead it was a mistake or a miracle

 

a very low probability occurrence I’m sure but one which appears (understandably) to be driving this family

 

 

 

Was this after 4 months of zero brain activity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MoncurMacdonaldMercer
3 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Or your wages, everytime you go on holiday or buy a car, that money could go to starving Africans, the list would be endless, wouldn't it.


yup :)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shooter McGavin said:


I didn’t, why would I, with absolutely no medical training or law education behind me, think I know better than someone with 10+ years education and training behind them?

 

I’m not going to be one of these people who googles things for 5 minutes and starts thinking I know better than people who have about 10+ years education and experience.
 

Now, if it’s a sales person, or a mate down the pub telling me we’ll sign Ronaldo or a plumber telling me that new tap will cost £25,000, then of-course you would take all of that with a pinch of salt.

 

But lawyers, doctors & surgeons? I’d like to think that they’d know best, and a quick google doesn’t stand up to their education, qualifications and experience.


No one is comparing these professionals to Google mate or specifically talking about this case as it’s fairly clear what is the right thing to do there. However you said you would blindly accept A doctors or lawyers opinion. That’s a pretty bold statement when you are faced with tough medical or legal choices, no 2nd or 3d opinions ? clinical trials worth investigating ? Nah I’ll blindly accept what my doctor or lawyer tells me because they have never got anything wrong ever. 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
5 hours ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:


or smokers or fat folk, older folk with limited quality and quantity of life, unvaccinated, rock climbers, show jumpers, alcoholics, drug people, wind surfers, national hunt jockeys, boxers, vaccinating people didn’t need it, the cost of lockdown on countries with unstable food supply, gender realignment, nhs nose-jobs, etc etc

 

all these things and more an unjustifiable opportunity cost to saving children in Africa in some peoples opinions as well as of course “pointless court cases”

 

 

 

 

Most of these people generally don't do what they do in the name of God

My point was specifically about  Christian groups  funding of this campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MoncurMacdonaldMercer
1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

Was this after 4 months of zero brain activity?


I don’t know mate I acknowledged there likely were differences in the two cases but there was at least one similarity in that the highly skilled professionals deemed there was no hope of recovery - hence they were about to start using his organs

 

playing football now :)

 

as I’ve acknowledged and sure the family do to - a very low probability occurrence but quite a recent event so appears to be influencing the plea for further time - I think it’s understandable especially if the patient isn’t suffering unduly which I think can be argued he’s not - appreciate others have very different views which is fine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Because this is their last dice. They wanted to keep him alive to get him treatment that was offered in other nations before. Now that's all been taken away they can at least let him go in the best way possible.

 

If it's possible to move him, I don't know the logistics of it, but I'd imagine it not being all that easy to move the laddie and all the machines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MoncurMacdonaldMercer
4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Most of these people generally don't do what they do in the name of God

My point was specifically about  Christian groups  funding of this campaign.


that’s good - mine is a wider point about the use of scarce resource and how people may have very strong and differing opinions on it - your point is a subset of mine 😃👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh

As horrible and tragic this whole episode is for the family (and I cannot really relate to how they are feeling) perhaps in due course his mum will use her substantial energies to go after the rodents online  who put him up to the "dare" on tik-tok and the company itself for allowing such shite on their platform. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis Reynolds
1 hour ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:


nope - but if you google something along the lines of ‘boy deemed brain dead wakes up just before his organs were about to be removed’ you’ll see him actually playing football in one of the links 😃

 

Lewis Roberts? 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-61220154

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:


they were about to remove his organs when he woke up from being deemed ‘brain dead’ so no his brain wasn’t dead it was a mistake or a miracle

 

a very low probability occurrence I’m sure but one which appears (understandably) to be driving this family

 

if I’m understanding correctly they just want more time - not sure how long but appears they want more time to exhaust the albeit very low probability of recovery

There’s necrotised brain matter in the boys lumbar fluid. There is no probability of recovery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shooter McGavin
1 hour ago, Dazo said:


No one is comparing these professionals to Google mate or specifically talking about this case as it’s fairly clear what is the right thing to do there. However you said you would blindly accept A doctors or lawyers opinion. That’s a pretty bold statement when you are faced with tough medical or legal choices, no 2nd or 3d opinions ? clinical trials worth investigating ? Nah I’ll blindly accept what my doctor or lawyer tells me because they have never got anything wrong ever. 😂


I think you’d spiral into madness with that approach.

 

What if the 2nd doctor is wrong? Or the 3rd doctor is wrong? How will you know they are wrong when you have zero medical education or training?

 

And of-course people get things wrong and mistakes are made, that’s the nature of life. No amount of second guessing will ever completely negate from mistakes being made.

 

An interesting discussion, although I feel we’re maybe taking this thread off on a tangent, and off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I P Knightley
7 hours ago, Shooter McGavin said:

But lawyers, doctors & surgeons? I’d like to think that they’d know best, and a quick google doesn’t stand up to their education, qualifications and experience.

 

You still wouldn't (I hope) trust them 'blindly'. I've had the misfortune to be spending a lot of time with various medics over recent months and had more than one occasion where I've (correctly) challenged what the doctor's said. In a couple of cases I'd put it down to being overstretched at the hospital; in another case, the doctor is an arrogant old git who's been in the job too long and needs to retire.

 

Yes, they know a lot more medical terminology than me and have years of training and experience but it's always sensible to give yourself some credit for knowing what sounds right.

 

In the case of Archie's parents, though, I don't think their appeals follow common sense and, as others have said, it won't just be one lone doctor who's absent-mindedly said that life support should be switched off.

 

5 hours ago, Zico said:

Someone’s playing football after their brain started necrotising? Aye, OK. 

Ryan Porteous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
5 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

As horrible and tragic this whole episode is for the family (and I cannot really relate to how they are feeling) perhaps in due course his mum will use her substantial energies to go after the rodents online  who put him up to the "dare" on tik-tok and the company itself for allowing such shite on their platform. 

Now there is a law suit I would thoroughly endorse. The early reports on MSM referred coyly to him being discovered unconscious after participating in an on line game. As if he had passed out after a particularly strenuous internet Scrabble game. 

Someone argued that reporting the facts would encourage others to participate in these "games". But these young people don't read newspapers or watch or listen to main stream media. So why the silence about what actually happened and who and which tech companies are culpable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MoncurMacdonaldMercer
4 hours ago, Zico said:

There’s necrotised brain matter in the boys lumbar fluid. There is no probability of recovery. 


don’t know the technicalities mate - what was reported was that the boy was about to be operated on to share out his organs and he woke up/started to breath unaided just in time

 

whether that means the necrotised thing I’m not sure but it sort of infers they thought there was hence about to share out his organs but it turned out there had been a mistake or a miracle :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:


don’t know the technicalities mate - what was reported was that the boy was about to be operated on to share out his organs and he woke up/started to breath unaided just in time

 

whether that means the necrotised thing I’m not sure but it sort of infers they thought there was hence about to share out his organs but it turned out there had been a mistake or a miracle :)

 

 

necrotised means dead tissue 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shooter McGavin said:


I think you’d spiral into madness with that approach.

 

What if the 2nd doctor is wrong? Or the 3rd doctor is wrong? How will you know they are wrong when you have zero medical education or training?

 

And of-course people get things wrong and mistakes are made, that’s the nature of life. No amount of second guessing will ever completely negate from mistakes being made.

 

An interesting discussion, although I feel we’re maybe taking this thread off on a tangent, and off topic.


I don’t think you’d need to spiral but accept certain people would in desperation for a different answer they wanted to hear. Im sure there is loads of stories but A family member would have been learning how to cope with just one leg instead of walking about with the two they still have if they blindly accepted their consultants advice. I guess you’d know who is right when you reach the outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have had a good think about this and have come to a slightly different thought process today on this.
 

I still think turning Archie’s life support off is the most dignified and humane thing that could happen here. However there is a whole other layer of potential problems that could arise from this and one of them is parental rights V states rights over children.  And I actually agree with Archie’s parents arguments on this even though their motivations aren’t logical. 
 

Where do we draw the line between parents rights to make decisions on their children and when does the state/doctor/hospital have the right to step in and decide that the best interest in their children? It could be argued intervention on behalf of Archie in this case is the best thing but ultimately when did the responsibility of that decision change from the parents to the hospitals/courts decision? 
 

All I see is love pouring from this mother and family. I can’t help but feel she can’t think logically here. But I still think they have a sound argument about parental responsibility and decision making. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Have had a good think about this and have come to a slightly different thought process today on this.
 

I still think turning Archie’s life support off is the most dignified and humane thing that could happen here. However there is a whole other layer of potential problems that could arise from this and one of them is parental rights V states rights over children.  And I actually agree with Archie’s parents arguments on this even though their motivations aren’t logical. 
 

Where do we draw the line between parents rights to make decisions on their children and when does the state/doctor/hospital have the right to step in and decide that the best interest in their children? It could be argued intervention on behalf of Archie in this case is the best thing but ultimately when did the responsibility of that decision change from the parents to the hospitals/courts decision? 
 

All I see is love pouring from this mother and family. I can’t help but feel she can’t think logically here. But I still think they have a sound argument about parental responsibility and decision making. 
 

 


Do they have a sound argument ? A parents responsibility not matter how hard they try involves an emotional rather than medical opinion. In this case are the doing what is right for Archie or themselves ? I don’t blame them but the answer seems clear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doctor jambo
18 hours ago, AlimOzturk said:

Have had a good think about this and have come to a slightly different thought process today on this.
 

I still think turning Archie’s life support off is the most dignified and humane thing that could happen here. However there is a whole other layer of potential problems that could arise from this and one of them is parental rights V states rights over children.  And I actually agree with Archie’s parents arguments on this even though their motivations aren’t logical. 
 

Where do we draw the line between parents rights to make decisions on their children and when does the state/doctor/hospital have the right to step in and decide that the best interest in their children? It could be argued intervention on behalf of Archie in this case is the best thing but ultimately when did the responsibility of that decision change from the parents to the hospitals/courts decision? 
 

All I see is love pouring from this mother and family. I can’t help but feel she can’t think logically here. But I still think they have a sound argument about parental responsibility and decision making. 
 

 

Patient comes first.

the interests of the boy above all else .

These cases are rare - where it has been deemed by the court that his parents are not acting in his best interests, he is now being looked after by the court. 
Similar to when a child is taken into care by social work etc.

The parents have been deemed to not be making sound decisions , hence why there are I think 6 security guards outside his room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

Court rules he cannot be moved to hospice but delays time machines can be switched off till 14:00 to allow family time to appeal 

 

 

Need to stop the appeals, the boys dead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Patient comes first.

the interests of the boy above all else .

These cases are rare - where it has been deemed by the court that his parents are not acting in his best interests, he is now being looked after by the court. 
Similar to when a child is taken into care by social work etc.

The parents have been deemed to not be making sound decisions , hence why there are I think 6 security guards outside his room.

 

Exactly, and unfortunately it's often the case that what the family wants isn't in the best interests of the patient.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

Patient comes first.

the interests of the boy above all else .

These cases are rare - where it has been deemed by the court that his parents are not acting in his best interests, he is now being looked after by the court. 
Similar to when a child is taken into care by social work etc.

The parents have been deemed to not be making sound decisions , hence why there are I think 6 security guards outside his room.


This makes sense. When parents cannot make rationale decisions for their kids the state takes over. However and it’s a big however. 
 

Where do we draw the line? I remember the nanny state bill being drawn up by the SNP and I was horrified by it. Archie’s parents have brought about an arguement that has basically stayed; when can the state/other regulated authorities step in and take away parental rights? 
 

In this case, I would argue that the state have and did do the right thing by stepping in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doctor jambo
49 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:


This makes sense. When parents cannot make rationale decisions for their kids the state takes over. However and it’s a big however. 
 

Where do we draw the line? I remember the nanny state bill being drawn up by the SNP and I was horrified by it. Archie’s parents have brought about an arguement that has basically stayed; when can the state/other regulated authorities step in and take away parental rights? 
 

In this case, I would argue that the state have and did do the right thing by stepping in. 

They step

in when harm is being done.

When guardians are causing suffering , the independent judiciary can step in to protect someone who cannot do it themselves.

it’s the same if you get arrested for hitting your missus.

Prior to the trial you are given conditions  not to get in touch/ visit etc - doesn’t matter what she or you want.

Court steps in to prevent harm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weakened Offender
5 hours ago, Herbert. said:

 

 

Need to stop the appeals, the boys dead. 

 

They're his parents. Can you imagine their position. Any hope is better than no hope. It is a horrible story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert

His mother wants to try mouth to mouth resuscitation when the plugs are pulled. Sorry but this a bit sick. As was the internet game that killed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

His mother wants to try mouth to mouth resuscitation when the plugs are pulled. Sorry but this a bit sick. As was the internet game that killed him.

 

Its really tragic, you can see its just desperation from a mother not wanting to lose her child. Feel for her and the wee laddies family. Its tragic what they're going through but he's gone. Hopefully they'll get the support they need when the doctors do eventually turn the machines off. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of this sad and tragic saga has been doing anybody any good.

Not Archie, not his family, not the medical staff.

Everybody involved has been badly affected by what's been going on.

The longer it's been dragged on, the more lasting harm it's done to everyone involved.

 

I hope his family get proper support after he's gone. 

And I hope someone keeps the vultures off their backs.

 

I fear that those groups with vested interests or other agendas will be convincing them to keep fighting in the courts after he's passed, launching all sorts of frivolous suits against the medical staff, the hospital and anybody else they can think of.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...